Assessing the accessibility of activity centres and their prioritisation: a case study for Perth Metropolitan Area
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary objective of this study was to ascertain, through analysis of accessibility and development potential, which activity centres should be prioritised to support decentralisation of jobs, encourage better integration of transport and land use and ultimately aid the evaluation of a more compact, consolidation and connected city. In doing so, this study evaluated and compared the existing accessibility of different geographic units across the city, including the 34 activity centres identified by the Government of Australia, by the two most frequently use transport modes, namely – public transport and car. The analysis of this study has two parts. Firstly, an isochrone-based measure of accessibility was used for an accessibility modelling across the Perth Metropolitan Area in Western Australia. Secondly, using six node-place based indicators, this paper also endeavoured to prioritise the geographic units that are already better served by public transport, as indicated by the accessibility analysis. Multi-criteria weighed scoring method was applied to calculate a score out of 100 for each of the geographic units. The results of this analysis could help to identify activity centre(s) and other areas in Perth, if any, with higher potentials of being a Transit Oriented Development (TOD) supportive activity centre.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".